View
151
Download
5
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ENLARGING WESTERN TRANSLATION THEORY:
INTEGRATING NON-WESTERN THOUGHT ABOUT TRANSLATION
Maria Tymoczko
Professor of Comparative Literature
University of Massachusetts Amherst
In Western1 tradition most statements about translation that date before the
demise of positivism are relatively useless for current theorizing about translation,
because most are limited by the dominant ideological perspective of their time--say,
Western imperialism--or are primarily applicable to a particular Western historical
circumstance--say, the position of a national language and literature within a larger
cultural hegemony. These problems are before me whether I read the statements of
Latin writers including Cicero and Jerome, the Germans including Martin Luther and
Friedrich Schleiermacher, or the English including Alexander Tytler and Matthew
Arnold. Such early writers speak to their own condition, out of their own time and
their own historical circumstances, but there is rarely any self-reflexivity or
acknowledgment about limitations of their own perspective. The result is declamation
that is supposed to address translations of all times and everywhere, but that is
sorely circumscribed by a cultural moment.
1 There is, of course, a problem with the terms east and west, both of which implicitly imply perspective and position. East or west ofwhat? In Chinese tradition where China is the "middle kingdom", India is "the west": hardly the case for the imperial British. To theRomans the nations of southwestern Asia were considered "the east", a perspective still encoded in the phrase "the Near East". At the sametime, there are European countries with histories of colonization, notably the Celtic fringe, and hence have affinities with the Third World.Here I am using the term Western roughly to refer to ideas and perspectives that initially originated in and became dominant in Europe,spreading from there to various other locations in the world, where in some cases, such as the United States, they have also becomedominant. At this point in time, however, when Western ideas have permeated the world and there is widespread interpenetration ofcultures everywhere, the terms east and west become increasingly problematic.
Tymoczko
The restricted perspectives of Western pronouncements about translation
before World War I are not always apparent because of the positivist, generalized,
and prescriptive discourses that frame them. Yet some of the boundaries of Western
thinking about translation in these statements should be patently obvious: the fact
that most views have been formulated with reference to sacred texts, including both
religious scripture and canonical literary works, for example. Similarly Western
theorizing has been distorted by its concentration on the written word. Not least are
difficulties caused by the vocabulary in some languages that links translation with
conveying sacred relics unchanged from place to place: the word translation is
paradigmatic of this problem (cf. Tymoczko 2003a). Western translation theorists are
heirs of these limitations. It is only in the postpositivist period that Western
theory begins to show an awareness of its circumscribed nature, and even then many
theories of translation retain a surprisingly positivist formulation or efface
recognition of their own specific commitments and pretheoretical assumptions.
There is a need in translation studies for more flexible and deeper
understandings of translation, and the thinking of non-Western peoples about this
central human activity is essential in achieving broader and more durable theories
about translation. Here I explore the implications of some non-Western concepts and
practices of translation, as well as marginal Western ones that fall outside the
domain of dominant Western theory. As a whole, I argue that in order to expand
contemporary theories of translation, it is not sufficient merely to incorporate
additional non-Western data pertaining to translation histories, episodes, and
artifacts. The implications of those data must be analyzed and understood, and the
results theorized. The consequence will be the refurbishing of basic assumptions and
structures of Western translation theory itself.2
Let me begin by observing that all theory is based on presuppositions--
called axioms or postulates in mathematics. In the case of translation theory, the
2 Note that in good research there is always this sort of reciprocity between theory and data. Theory drives the collection and interpretationof data, but data in turn refine and refurbish theory. See Tymoczko 2002.
Tymoczko
current presuppositions are markedly Eurocentric. Indeed, they grow out of a rather
small subset of European cultural contexts based on Greco-Roman textual traditions,
Christian values, nationalistic views about the relationship between language and
cultural identity, and an upper-class emphasis on technical expertise and literacy.
For more general and more universally applicable theories of translation, those
presuppositions must be articulated and acknowledged, they must be reviewed and
rethought.
Before turning to such an articulation, however, an excursus is in order.
It's worth asking whether a universal theory of translation is possible and, if so,
whether constructing such a theory should be a goal of translation studies. This
question is, of course, a subset of a larger question, namely, is it possible to
construct any humanistic theory that will have universal applicability? It is quite
feasible to construct theories of solar systems that are universally applicable, or
theories of the cell. There can be theoretical knowledge that pertains to all six-
sided geometrical objects. But can there be a theory of literature, say, or human
cultural behaviors in general? It is possible to have more than a local theory of
translation? In fact, is "normal" a concept that applies to human culture at all, or
is it just a setting on a washing machine?
Here I weigh in with those who believe that much is to be learned by
attempting to formulate general theories, even if such attempts are ultimately
defeated or only partially realized. General theories are not necessarily achievable-
-a complete description of literature, for example, may be impossible--but the virtue
of pushing theories of human culture toward broader and broader applicability is that
paradoxically researchers actually end up learning more and more about the particular
phenomena that are of greatest interest to them. It is only possible to define the
self when we are clear about the boundary that divides the self from the other (cf.
Luhmann 1984). Thus, the nature of literature in a specific culture and the
positioning of that literature with reference to its own culture become more clear
when such arrangements are compared to the situation of other literatures; the
broader the comparison, the deeper the resulting understanding of specific local
Tymoczko
phenomena. Thus, I believe that broader and more general theories of translation will
illuminate all specific phenomena related to translation everywhere, if only in
virtue of the increased awareness of difference.
I. Rethinking current presuppositions about translation
Let us turn to some current presuppositions about translation that are taken
as a matter of course by most Western translation scholars and that underly most
Western translation theory. Why wouldn't they be taken as givens, in view of their
widespread applicability in Western countries? Yet these are presuppositions that are
in need of rethinking if translation theory is to be extended to non-Western
situations, and, moreover, there are many situations within Western cultures that
current translation theory cannot adequately account for or describe because of these
prevailing assumptions. In what follows I draw on such marginal examples to
illustrate some of the problems with current paradigms, which incorporation of non-
Western experience, thought, and perspectives may mitigate. What follows is a
selection of basic assumptions upon which contemporary Western translation theory
rests, assumptions that have not been well examined or fully interrogated.
1. Translators are necessary in interlingual and intercultural situations;
they mediate between two linguistic and cultural groups. This is a basic assumption
of the discipline of translation studies, yet all who study translation are
subliminally aware that there are many situations in which this presupposition does
not apply. Monolingualism has been taken as the norm, whereas it may turn out to be
the case that plurilingualism is more typical worldwide. I think, for example, of my
grandmother who grew up in the southeast corner of Slovakia at the turn of the
twentieth century, who left school at the age of 12, but who spoke as a matter of
course two languages: Slovak and Hungarian. The same grandmother later learned to
switch back and forth between Bohemian and Slovak, she came to understand Polish, and
she learned to speak, read, and write English as well. What is the role of
Tymoczko
translation in such plurilingual communities as those of my grandmother? Are there
normally translators per se in such cultures? Or are the monolingual marginalized and
relegated to restricted and impoverished domains of cultural participation and
competence, with monolinguals not privy to participation in the world of, say,
commerce? Are monolinguals afforded summary more than translation, observation more
than participation? These are questions that translation studies has not adequately
researched.
Numerous cases also illustrate the fact that translation can be an essential
element of plurilingual cultures but not for the purpose of mediation or
communication between linguistic groups. For example, there is a bilingual community
of Hawaiian nationalists who insist on speaking Hawaiian in official U.S. government
contexts, particularly legal ones, and who insist on having the services of
government translators who can translate between Hawaiian and English. The speakers
of Hawaiian do not ask for translation to facilitate communication, being usually
less facile in Hawaiian than in English which is generally their first language.
Rather, the Hawaiian speakers insist on translation as part of their attempt to block
"common-sense" communication in the United States, to thwart U.S. business-as-usual,
and to promote recognition of the existence of a pre-Anglo culture in their islands.
Similarly, as I have argued in Translation in a Postcolonial Context (1999),
postcolonial cultures illustrate the limitation of this presupposition that
translation facilitates communication between groups. In fact translation in a
postcolonial context can mediate across languages within a single group, functioning
to connect a people with its past, for example, more than to connect one people with
another. Translation can be done of a source community for the community itself, even
when it involves translation between two languages, rather than translation from one
state of a language to another.
This basic premise of translation studies is complex as my counterexamples
indicate. It involves presuppositions about the way that languages function in
plurilingual layering, the purpose of translation as primarily communicative, and the
Tymoczko
belief that translation operates to connect different groups. These assumptions may
all reflect an Anglo-American model of linguistic (in)competence, equating nation
with language, and national identity with linguistic provinciality.3 Translation
studies has, after all, been heavily theorized by English speakers, who are
notoriously deficient in language acquisition, and who, thus, may be particularly
biased in their theorizing of translation. More research may show that the assumption
about monolingualism built into translation studies is ultimately atypical of Europe,
never mind the world as a whole.
2. Translation involves (written) texts. This second premise of dominant
Western translation theory has marginalized interpretation as a central activity to
be theorized in translation studies. A sign of the bias toward seeing translation as
a literacy practice is that even studies of interpretation are slanted in favor of
conference interpretation, an activity that begins with a fixed written text. The
focus on written texts as the subject of translation has been decried within
translation studies by those promoting the study of interpretation (see Cronin 2002
and sources cited). But it is a much more serious deficiency, for most human cultures
through time have been oral, and this continues to be the case in much, if not most,
of the non-Western world; it follows that most translation through time and space has
been oral. Orality is the central condition of human biology and culture, and
translation must be theorized so as to acknowledge these conditions.4 In expanding
translation theory to incorporate non-Western experience, the premise that
translation primarily involves written or fixed texts must be adjusted, for the
majority of human beings outside the West still live in cultures where literacy plays
a very restricted role.
3 This is a model that relates to the specific histories of a number of key English-speaking nations, including England (and later the UnitedKingdom), the United States, and Australia.
4 Preliminary exploration of the question is found in Tymoczko 1990.
Tymoczko
3. The primary text types that translators work with have been defined and
categorized. Many Westerners believe that they know, use, and have categorized the
central human text types: epic, drama, and lyric poetry, for example; or novel,
academic lecture, and business letter. In fact, text types can vary dramatically from
culture to culture, and defining a culture's repertory of primary forms and text
types is enormously complex. There is even evidence within Western tradition that
those primary forms characteristic of Greek culture (e.g. epic, lyric, drama) are not
universal but a result of cultural diffusion from the Greco-Romano tradition.5
Needless to say, the question of text types is further complicated by other aspects
of cultural embeddedness of discourse: speech acts (e.g. irony), signals pertaining
to relevance, and so forth (cf. Hatim 1997:ch. 16). Translation theory has hardly
touched these complexities of text type, yet they are essential to understand if
current thinking about translation is to be enlarged. The question of text types
intersects with the need to understand orality, for oral cultures often have very
different text types and different semiotic structurings of texts from those of
literate cultures. Far from being well conceptualized in existing translation theory,
questions pertaining to text type must be explored further if translation theory is
to expand beyond Western models.
4. The process of translation is a sort of "black box": an individual
translator decodes a given message to be translated and recodes the same message in a
second language. Although this classic representation of the process of translation
has been criticized as too simple by many scholars, nonetheless the model continues
to operate implicitly in many, even most, Western formulations of translation theory.
The concept of decoding/encoding has become a matter of scholarly debate,6 but the
overall picture of a single translator engaged in a mysterious inner process
(conditioned, of course, by social context) continues to hold sway. The translation
5 For the argument, see Tymoczko 1997, discussed below.
6 A classic statement of this model is found in Nida 1964:ch. 7; see Katan 1999:ch. 7 on debate about decoder/encoder models, as well asother current models of the translation process.
Tymoczko
process thus conceived is very individualistic and bound to Western individualism as
well as dominant Western translation practice, but the model has assumed normative
status in a great deal of translation studies research. This view of translation
practice does not reflect the full range of translation practices worldwide and may
not even be the dominant mode crossculturally. It should be contrasted, for example,
with the practice of translation in China as it can be traced for two thousand years:
a practice that has typically involved more than one person working on a translation,
even groups of people working together assigned to highly differentiated roles.7 Such
non-Western practices of translation challenge basic Western thinking and research
about the translation process.
5. Translators are generally educated in their art and they have
professional standing; often they learn their craft in a formal way connected with
schooling or training that instructs the translator in language competence, standards
of textuality, norms of transposition, and so forth. This presupposition is widely
deployed despite its logical and practical problems, in part because the professional
status of translators is so deeply rooted in Western culture.8 The difficulties with
this assumption have been most obvious to those scholars who are interested in
community translation (still perhaps the most common type of translation in the West,
as elsewhere), where translators are rarely trained or schooled, indeed where they
are amateur almost by definition. But the extension of this model to non-Western
situations brings obvious absurdities: with so large a percentage of the world
illiterate and holding schooling at a very high premium, it is obvious that
professionalized translation as found in the West will not occur in oral cultures and
that translator training and apprenticeship will take radically different forms from
those of the West.
7 Team translation has also played a prominent role in the West, but it continues to be inadequately theoretized. Consider, for example, thetranslation of the King James Bible or current protocols of the American Bible Society.
8 Consider the doctrinal and linguistic expertise required by Biblical translators or the official standing enjoyed by the latimers, the king'stranslators in the British Isles in the medieval period. On the logical problems associated with attempting to theorize translators asprofessionals, see Tymoczko 1998.
Tymoczko
6. Currently translation is entering a completely new phase and assuming
radically new forms because of cultural movements and diaporas associated with
globalization and because of the hybridity of the ensuing cultural configurations.
This is a hypothesis that has generated some of the most interesting and entertaining
speculative writing on translation in the last 15 years, but it is clearly a view
that can only be sustained by those who know very little history, even very little
modern history. The written history of the West alone documents vast population
migrations from the earliest times: for example, the simultaneous migration of
thousands of Celts who moved from what is now Switzerland to the Iberian Peninsula,
passing through Provence under the watchful eyes of the Roman legions in the second
century B.C.E. The Roman Empire itself was an immense realm covering much of Africa,
Asia, and Europe, where there was constant intermingling of languages and cultures,
where cultural and linguistic translation was continuous, and where population
movements--with resulting linguistic and cultural dislocation and interface--were
often a matter of public policy. The Chinese empire likewise brought together many
peoples, languages, and cultures. The Silk Road connected the great Chinese empire
with western realms and served as a conduit in both directions for every manner of
human idea and every form of technology, and it supported population migrations as
well. The resulting linguistic and cultural translation is documented in China since
antiquity. Even the history of Ireland, a small and seemingly isolated realm, can be
shown to involve almost continual interlingual and intercultural contact and
hybridity as far back as human beings have inhabited the island.9 Similarly the
cultural effects associated with the Viking diaspora into the British Isles and other
parts of Europe are palpable in surviving documents, linguistic borrowings, and other
historical evidence. In the modern era, the types of hybridities associated with
diasporas that cultural studies scholars tout as new can be traced in most immigrant
cultures, notably those of North and South America, where the phenomena have a
documented history dating to the European discovery of the Americas in the fifteenth
9 On these issues see Tymoczko 2003b, as well as other essays in Cronin and Ó Cuilleanáin. See also Tymoczko and Ireland 2003a, 2003b.
Tymoczko --
century. Diaporas, population movements, cultural and linguistic contact, cultural
mixing and hybridity, and translation have been part of human history since the dawn
of our species and its diffusion out of Africa. This hypothesis must be rehabilitated
before it can be useful and non-Western data will aid in the rehabilitation.
7. Translations can be identified as such: translation theory has defined
the objects of its study. A persistent enterprise in Western translation theory for
more than a century has been the attempt to define translation: there have been
efforts to specify definitions; to distinguish translations from imitations,
adaptations, and versions; to categorize types of translations; to look for
commonalities linking types of translations; to establish hierarchies among
translation types and establish prototypes of translation; and so forth.10 The
interest in and the insistence on defining translation are not in fact trivial or
irrelevant. A major aspect of the scientific method--and, therefore, of all scholarly
research--is the definition of the objects of study; such definitions are part of the
theoretical framework of a research methodology. Conceptual elements must be
delineated, which involves identification of both the "units" of investigation and
the means to classify those units. Such definitions actually constitute and construct
the objects of study and the field of inquiry (cf. Foucault 1972:40-49).
The difficulty with efforts to define translation in Western translation
theory is that it is so easy to find exceptions to the various definitions proposed.
For example, in medieval European literature scholars must acknowledge and encompass
in their definitions of translation not only the very literal word-to-word
translations of saints lives from Latin to vernacular languages, but the 20-page
version of the Odyssey in Irish entitled Merugud Ulix meic Leirtis, as well as the
Old French romance version of the Aeneid entitled Roman d'Eneas (in which Aeneas is
more notable as lover than as founder of Rome). Similarly many translations
10 Some research even predicates the work of "professional translators" as the subject of investigation--suggesting that "real" translationsemanate from professional translators who are increasingly pictured as working at a desk with a computer--professionals trained in rulesabout how to make transpositions between specific language pairs, furnished with CAT resources, and so forth.
Tymoczko --
associated with oral Western literary tradition defy conventional definitions of
translation, and translations produced under the constraints of postcolonial
contestations show unexpected differences as well. But it is also easy to find
everyday, contemporary counterexamples also, say the (legally mandated) translations
of advertisements on bilingual packaging that in fact do not duplicate each other's
messages in alternate languages, but constitute additional and supplementary texts
intended to promote the product among an implied readership of bilingual consumers.
A peril in fixating on a specific definition of translation in translation
theory is that rigid definitions may actually lead to closure on the question of what
translations are, resulting in the narrowing of research and the exclusion or
marginalization of cultural products that are different from those dominant in the
West at present.12 Faced with such problems of delimiting the objects of study in
translation research, scholars made two major breakthroughs in the 1970s.
First in importance is Gideon Toury's definition of translation as "any
target language text which is presented or regarded as such within the target system
itself, on whatever grounds" (Toury 1982:27; cf. Toury 1980:14, 37, 43-45). Toury
broke through the tendency to define the objects of study in translation studies in
terms of dominant, modern Eurocentric models, and he opened the way for cultural
self-definition within the field of translation studies. This must be underscored:
Toury's move is critical in decentering translation studies, in moving the field
beyond Eurocentric positions, and in permitting self-representation regarding the
basic data of translation by people who know it best in their cultures. His
definition of translation is in fact an a posteriori definition rather than a
prescriptive or logical definition: whatever objects function as translations within
a receptor culture and are recognized as translations by members of that culture must
therefore be studied by scholars as translations, however different such objects
11 See the example offered by Itamar Even-Zohar in Grähs, Korlén, and Malmberg 1978:348-49.
12 I see marginalization of the other as a danger in current efforts to define translation as a prototype concept, attempts that will ultimatelystifle research in translation studies.
Tymoczko --
might be from the scholars' expectations of or norms for translations. This move is
essential to incorporating non-Western translation history and practice into
translation theory. Significantly, Toury's definition is still resisted by many
translation scholars.
The second development, related to and perhaps even entailed in Toury's a
posteriori definition of translation, is the theory of rewritings formulated by André
Lefevere, or the theory of refractions as he first called his idea.13 Lefevere showed
that there are commonalities between all forms of rewriting, including anthologies,
histories of literature, works of literary criticism, and editions, as well as
children's versions of texts, films, cartoons, and so on. Like translations, all
these types of refractions are forms of reprocessing and representing source texts;
Lefevere argued that the lines between types of rewriting are blurred and that the
characteristics of different types of rewriting reveal a great deal about the
function and social position of all of them.14
The question of what a translation is takes on new meaning if translation
theory is enlarged so as to include non-Western materials, for if the definition of
translation and other objects of study are bounded by Western experience or centered
on Western prototypes, it will be hard for the field to go beyond those very
delimiters and be open to the multifarious types of translation products and
processes that exist in the entire world. It is not possible to expand the theory of
translation if the field of study cannot accommodate all the data available. And vice
versa of course. Essential to this process is the redefinition of the objects of
study in translation theory, and it involves both the possibility of self-
representation and the blurring of Western boundaries for translation.
13 See Lefevere 1985, 1992, and sources cited.
14 Following from Lefevere's views, arguments about whether texts are versions or translations can be viewed as misplaced in cases wherethe texts function equally to represent the source text and where they serve related purposes in the receiving culture.
Tymoczko --
A hint at the possible realignments that may be necessary can be seen by
examining some non-Western words for 'translation' and looking at their etymologies,
cognates, lexical fields, and specific histories. Here are a few examples. In India
the common words for translation are rupantar, 'change in form' and anuvad, 'speaking
after, following', both of which derive from Sanskrit; Sujit Mukherjee (1994:80)
indicates that neither of these terms implies fidelity to the original and that the
concept of faithful rendering came to India with Christianity.15 By contrast, the
current Arabic word for translation is tarjama, originally meaning 'biography',
connected perhaps with the early focus of Syriac Christian translators on the Bible,
patristic texts, and lives of saints in the third to fifth centuries of the common
era. The Syriac translators eventually turned to more material subjects as well,
becoming major conduits of Greek science and philosophy to other cultures; this
learned movement underlies the later great translation tradition into Arabic
initiated and patronized by the Abbasid caliphate.16 Still another non-Western
approach to translation is indicated by a native American word meaning 'to tell a
story across', connecting translation with narration or testimony.17
A fourth way of looking at translation is suggested by the most common
Chinese phrase for translation, fan yi, which means 'turning over', formed using the
characters for fan, which means 'turning a leaf of a book' but also 'somersault,
flip', and yi, which means 'interpretation' and is a homonym of the word meaning
'exchange'. This concept of fan yi is linked to the image of embroidery: thus, if the
source text is the front side of an embroidered work, the target text can be thought
of as the back side of the same piece. Like the reverse of an embroidery--which
typically in Chinese handwork has hanging threads, loose ends, and even variations in
patterning from the front--a translation in this conceptualization is viewed as
different from the original and is not expected to be equivalent in all respects. At
15 I am also indebted here to Harish Trivedi, personal communication.
16 For more on these translation movements see Montgomery 2000:chs. 2, 3.
17 Barbara Godard, "Writing Between Cultures", unpublished paper presented at the University of Warwick, July 1997.
Tymoczko --
the same time, of course, the "working side" of an embroidery teaches much about its
construction. Both images--embroidery and turning a page--suggest that in China text
and translation are related as front and back of the object, or perhaps as positive
and negative of the same picture.18
These are all very different ways of thinking about translation from those
characteristic of the West. As I have argued in more detail elsewhere,19 in order to
accommodate such a range of ideas about translation, translation must be viewed as a
cluster concept, the most famous example of which is the concept game, discussed in
detail by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953 section 65 ff.). Unlike many types of categories,
cluster concepts cannot be characterized by a set of necessary and sufficient
conditions that identify all instances of the category but only instances of that
category: in this case, all translations but only translations. Instead cluster
categories are linked together by what Wittgenstein calls "family resemblances": such
categories are "related to one another in many different ways...[by] a complicated
network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall
similarities, sometimes similarities of details" (1953 section 65 ff.).20 Cluster
categories differ from many types of category because of their pragmatic quality:
membership in the cluster is not a matter of simple logic, as Wittgenstein indicates,
but a function of practice and usage, and it is defined by cultural recognition.
Thus, to understand such a concept takes us deep into the realms that Bourdieu (1977)
has discussed regarding the interrelationship between cultural practice and cultural
knowledge. Given the important role of practice in translation studies, it is perhaps
not so surprising that translation would turn out to be such a cluster concept. A
cluster-concept definition of translation is congruent with the insights of both
Toury and Lefevere, and it can accommodate the non-Western conceptualizations of
18 I am indebted here to personal communications with Martha Cheung and Liu Xiaoqing.
19 Tymoczko 1998. See also my CETRA lectures, forthcoming from St. Jerome Publishing.
20 The result is that a cluster category is a "fuzzy category", so to speak.
Tymoczko --
translation discussed above, all of which have ground-breaking implications for
enlarging the theory of translation.
8. The parameters of the relationship between source text and translation
have been delineated, even though debate still remains on the particulars. The
difficulties with this assumption follow from the incomplete and culturally bound
definitions of translation used by many translation studies scholars. Moreover, as I
have argued elsewhere (Tymoczko 2003a), the words most commonly used for translation
in European languages--particularly the words deriving from Latin, including
translation itself--have in many ways distorted Western understandings about the
relationship between a text and its translation. The word translation, for example,
suggests a carrying across, indicating that the relationship between text and
translation should be a strong form of equivalence, a type of identity relationship
rather than a similarity relationship which entails difference. Speakers of English
and Romance languages have been prominent in theorizing translation, and it may be
the linguistic implications of the words for translations in those languages that are
partly responsible for the tendency of Western translation theory to become embroiled
in fruitless arguments about the nature of translation equivalence. The understanding
of this primary relationship is yet another area that must open up if Western
translation theory is to be enlarged, with the field ultimately moving to an a
posteriori definition of equivalence. The contemplation of just the small sampling of
non-Western words for translation that I have provided suggests some of the richness
of conceptualization that may result.
II. What is needed to unseat these presuppositions
What must be done in order to move beyond these assumptions, to accommodate
non-Western perspectives on the nature and practice of translation, and to enlarge
translation theory as a consequence? Although in the short term it may be difficult
to change ideas on these points held by people who currently teach and research
Tymoczko --
pragmatic aspects of translation, theoreticians of translation must begin to shift
these assumptions in translation theory itself, whence change will eventually
"trickle down" to other branches of the field.21 The following are some brief
suggestions for how to begin, indicating the sorts of concrete research projects that
might be undertaken so as to enlarge the theory of translation.
1. Exploration of the nature of plurilingual and pluricultural life. To
adequately understand how and where translation functions in plurilingual societies
throughout the world, much more information is needed in translation studies about
linguistic behavior and linguistic mediation in such cultures. Existing studies by
anthropologists, ethnographers, sociologists, and linguists on these questions must
be identified and put to use within translation studies. Additional empirical
investigations will probably need to be undertaken in order to garner information
that specifically pertains to translation practices, processes, and products in
plurilingual cultures. Work in translation studies must be set on a firm empirical
basis regarding the range of actual conditions and behaviors related to translation
in plurilingual societies.
2. Integration of knowledge about oral cultures into translation studies.
Investigating the nature of oral cultures has been a continuous thread in my
scholarly interests, but I still feel that I have only begun to understand the
characteristics of orality and the differences between oral cultures and literate
ones. In primary oral cultures many things are different: how people learn and
produce texts, how memory is conserved, how tradition and variation are viewed, and
so forth. Even more basic things also vary: the meaning of "a word", "the same", and
21 What I believe will follow when theorists become compelling about the implications of the nature of translation practices worldwide isthe abandonment of prescriptive approaches to translation, not just in translation theory but ultimately in translation pedagogy as well. Thiswill be the logical consequence of the broadening of translation theory: that practice will be taught as time, place, and circumstancespecific.
Tymoczko --
"original", to give only a few important examples.22 The implications for translation
practice of the absence of fixed texts--both in terms of source text and target text-
-as well as the specifics of cultural uptake in traditional oral societies should be
investigated by translation scholars. Translation theorists would also do well to
learn the characteristics of secondary oral cultures, as well as primary ones.
A beginning toward this goal is to valorize research on interpretation, with
a commitment in interpreting studies to shift attention away from conference
interpretation toward interpretation in situations that do not involve fixed texts.
The inclusion of research about interpretation in every issue of Mona Baker's journal
The Translator is an example of what is needed in journals as well as collections of
essays. I would also second Michael Cronin's (2002) call for a cultural turn in
translation studies, which will begin to differentiate, contextualize, and
historicize research on interpretation.23
3. Openness to a greater diversity of text types. Obviously diversity of
text type intersects with the differences between oral and literate cultures. As we
have seen, many cultures have different primary forms and text types from those
typical of Western cultures: this rich diversity must be more adequately integrated
into the theory of translation. In the process it is important to reflect the fact
that texts with similar surface structure may perform very different functions and
may hold very different positions in the textual repertories of diverse cultures. The
converse is, of course, also true: text types with divergent surface structures may
nonetheless perform similar functions and hold similar positions crossculturally.
Two cases serve as examples. As I have argued elsewhere (Tymoczko 1997), the
fact that Celtic literatures seem to have no native dramatic forms corresponding to
mainstream European drama may be misleading. The Celtic texts that have been
22 A classic study of orality is Lord 1964.
23 See also Hatim 1997:200-212 who stresses the importance of research on and training in community interpretation in translation studies.
Tymoczko --
generally analyzed by scholars as exquisite examples of European lyric poetry--
emotional poems in the first person attributed to known historical persons or
legendary characters--should probably be seen instead as examples of a performance
genre. Spoken (i.e., performed) by members of the native orders of professional
poets--reputed for being prophets, seers, and visionaries--such poems are a
counterpart to the dramatic literature which is found in other medieval cultures and
which scholars see as "missing" from early Irish and Welsh literature.
A second example of these issues pertaining to text type is found in the
storytelling traditions of some native peoples of North America. Both in tribal
council and in private settings, certain tribes of Native Americans use stories about
ostensibly unrelated topics as a means of achieving consensus and reaching a decision
about an issue under discussion or debate.24 In other words, narrative is the
rhetorical form of discourse and debate. Similarly, allusions to narratives can
operate in powerful ways that are different from those dominant in Western tradition,
thus arguably constituting a distinct text type. Keith Basso (1990:138-73) gives an
example of Apache elders reflectively trading place names (which alluded to and,
hence, encapsulated narratives serving as exempla) as a means of reflecting on,
assessing, and coming to agreement on the meaning of the behavior of a younger member
of the tribe.
As can be seen, reassessment of the question of text types in translation
studies has a variety of facets. Those interested in the theory of translation must
become expert in the wide variety of text types used in human cultures throughout the
world, in the assessment of both surface structures and deep structures of texts, and
in the understanding of such features as embeddedness, as discussed earlier. These
are preliminaries to expanding translation theory so that non-Western data can be
accommodated.
24 This practice continues even among some assimilated tribes, such as the Mashpees of Massachusetts.
Tymoczko --
4. Attention to processes of translation in other cultures. What types of
translation processes are found throughout the world? Translation scholars should
inventory the repertory of actual translation practices worldwide, investigating as
well the boundary between transmission (or transfer) of cultural materials and
translation per se in various societies. The black-box model of the individual
translator working alone must be superseded by more accurate data on the range and
frequency of different types of translation processes, including those that are
emerging as a result of the development of modern technology, information devices,
and the like. But inventory is not sufficient: the different types of processes must
be analyzed for their implications and then theoretized within an expanded view of
translation.
5. Recognition of all types of translators: beyond professionalism. If a
broader view of process becomes part of translation theory, it follows that there
will be a broader view of translators--not only of their identities, but their
training, their capabilities, and so forth. The idea of the translator as a
professional is a pretheoretical construct, based on Western practice and Western
translation history; as the discipline becomes more inclusive of non-Western data,
Western cultural imperatives about who translators are and how they should behave
will also shift in the formulation of theory.
6. Knowledge of the history of cultural movements and cultural interface.
Clearly the best way to achieve change in translation theory and practice and to
enlarge understandings about translation is to gather more historical data about
cultural diasporas and migrations, patterns of cultural interface and hybridity, and
histories of translation movements as the phenomena have occurred throughout the
history of the world. More information and more particular information about the
operations of immigrant societies can also be gathered by translation scholars, with
a view to understanding what cultural elements remain intact, how blendings occur,
and how these effects impact on translation itself in such situations.
Tymoczko --
7 and 8. Expansion of the object of study: redefining translation and the
relationship between text and translation. Implicitly I have already suggested a
number of things that should be done in translation studies to enlarge and redefine
the object of study (and its corollary, to reconfigure concepts about ways that a
text and its translation are related), including examining the meanings of words for
translation in non-Western contexts and looking at specific historical traditions
associated with those variant conceptions of translation. In theorizing the data it
is essential to view translation as a cluster concept, moving beyond attempts to
define translation as a logical concept or a prototype concept, which have resulted
in so many Eurocentric pronouncements about the field. Clearly, in order to
understand the scope of the cluster concept called translation in English,
translation studies scholars must be assiduous in seeking out more of the world's
words for translation, as well as in investigating in detail the connotations,
implications, translation practices, and actual histories of translation associated
with those terms. Only by engaging in such an investigative enterprise can
translation scholars fully understand the objects of reseach in translation studies--
encompassed in the large and complicated cluster concept of translation--and the
types of family resemblances that bind these objects conceptually, thus expanding
translation theory in the process.
In broadening the definition of translation and breaking the hold of
Eurocentric stereotypes of translation, it may also be helpful to consider forms and
modes of cultural interface that are related to translation but distinct from it.
Such forms include, for example, postcolonial literature and related hybridized forms
of cultural production; work on these forms in translation studies has already been
productive for the field.25 Three additional modes of cultural interface to explore
are illustrated by the English words transference, representation, and
transculturation.
25 See, for example, Bassnett and Trivedi 1999; Simon and St-Pierre 2000; as well as the survey of publications in Tymoczko 2000.
Tymoczko --
In transference or transmission,26 material is moved from one cultural
context to another, but the mode of transfer is not specified. It can range from
physical transfer to symbolic transfer (such as happens in a bank transfer) or
transfer that involves a radical shift in medium (such as a television transmission).
Thus, transference can result in cultural products that are either very close (even
identical) to the source substance or very different from the source material. In
cultural transfer, then, there is no presupposition about either the process or
product of the cultural transposition. By contrast, translation in a single culture
at a single point in time is usually governed by a cultural prototype encompassing
both product and process, notwithstanding the fact that such prototypes have varied
widely through history, from close linguistic transfer to free adaptation, from
fluency to radical abridgment, and so forth, as we have seen above. Thinking about
transference or transmission can remind translation studies scholars of how varied
cultural mediation can be in process and product, helping to move their thinking
beyond their own particular cultural presuppositions and prototypes about
translation.
Still another strand of translation is indicated by the word representation
To understand some of the parameters involved in representation--parameters that
illustrate the power and potential for manipulation in representation--it is useful
to consider the extensive definition of representation in the OED: a representation
is "an image, likeness, or reproduction in some manner of a thing; . . . the action
or fact of exhibiting in some visible image or form; . . .the fact of expressing or
denoting by means of a figure or symbol; symbolic action or exhibition; . . .a
statement or account, esp. one intended to convey a particular view or impression of
a matter in order to influence opinion or action; . . . a formal and serious
statement of facts, reasons, or arguments, made with a view to effecting some change,
preventing some action; hence, a remonstrance, protest, expostulation; . . . the
26 In the Oxford English Dictionary transference is defined as "the act or process of transferring; the conveyance from one place, person, orthing to another; transfer". Transmission is essentially treated as a synonym, defined as "the act of transmitting or fact of being transmitted;conveyance from one person or place to another; transference". I use the two words interchangeably in what follows.
Tymoczko --
operation of the mind in forming a clear image or concept; . . . the fact of standing
for, or in place of, some other thing or person, esp. with a right or authority to
act on their account; substitution of one thing or person for another".
Representation, thus, is a very complex concept with a number of facets.
Representation constructs an image, but implies as well the exhibition of that image.
It involves clarity of knowledge and symbolic substitution. It has a serious import
connected with social goals, including social change. Representation, therefore,
presupposes both a perspective on what is represented and a purpose in the activity
itself. In fact, since the decline of positivism, there has been a new awareness of
the constructivist aspect of representation, of the fact that representation is not
an "objective" process. As a form of definition that involves substitution in the
symbolic realm, representation creates images that have an ideological aspect. It is
the power inherent in representation, the potential for speaking with authority on
behalf of another, and the ability to make statements that will have legal or
political standing, as well as the inescapability of a perspective and purpose, that
have led to the crisis of representation in the social sciences, most particularly in
anthropology and ethnography, where the potential for manipulation and ethnocentrism
in representations has been discussed and debated.27 Obviously translation is a major
intercultural form of representation, and, as such, translations must be scrutinized
for the various factors associated with representation, even when translation occurs
internally to a plurilingual society.
Finally, translation can be seen in light of the process of
transculturation, which can be defined as "the transmission of cultural
characteristics from one cultural group to another".28 The term has come into English
from Spanish, where it was first used to speak about the interchange of cultural
characteristics between Europeans and the indigenous populations in Latin America,
27 See, for example, the essays in Clifford and Marcus 1986.
28 This definition is given in passing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974:12.65) in a discussion of the history of Mexico. In theunabridged Oxford English Dictionary the word is simply defined as "acculturation".
Tymoczko --
and to describe the creolization and mestizization of most Latin American cultures.
Transculturation goes far beyond the transfer of verbal materials and includes such
things as the transfer of ideas about religion and government; the spread of artistic
forms including music and the visual arts; and transfers having to do with material
culture including clothing, food, housing, transportation, and so forth, not to
mention more recent cultural domains like the modern media. Thus, the popularity of
Chinese food, reggae, and U.S. films around the world are all examples of
transculturation. Transculturation has elements in common with intersemiotic
translation, for it is not exclusively or even primarily a linguistic process. With
respect to texts, transculturation is often a matter of transposing elements that
constitute overcodings, such as the poetics, formal literary elements, and genres of
literary systems, as well as discourses, worldviews, and so forth. Obviously
transculturation is an essential aspect of cultural interchange in cultures where
more than one language and culture are in interface; indeed transculturation is
operative in any postcolonial nation.
One of the distinguishing aspects of transculturation, in contrast to either
representation or transmission, is that it entails the performance of specific forms
or aspects of another culture. It is not sufficient that Chinese food be displayed or
defined or described for transculturation to occur: the food must be eaten and
enjoyed as well. At the same time, paradoxically, transculturation does not always
involve representation; one can easily imagine a person receiving and incorporating
into her life a cultural form with little or no sense that it originated in another
cultural setting. That is, a cultural form can become completely naturalized in the
receptor culture or transculturation can proceed in such a way as to obscure the
point of origin of a specific cultural element.29 This aspect of easy interchange
through transculturation is very common in places that bring together more than one
cultural group; many things may be perceived as perfectly natural in a hybridized
culture without people having a strong sense of their cultural point of origin.
29 The eating of pizza might be seen as an example of such transculturation through much of the world: pizza is often not perceived asspecifically Italian at all, nor does it generally stand as a representation of anything Italian to the consumer of the pizza. In certaincircumstances it might even be thought of as American in origin.
Tymoczko --
One way of differentiating translations is to say that some are oriented
toward cultural transfer, some toward representation, and some toward
transculturation of source material. With respect to transculturation, some
translations actually perform the characteristics of their sources, importing genres,
reproducing functions of the source material (say, humor or word play) dynamically,
and so forth. Other translations do not have such performative aspects: they
assimilate generic markers to receptor standards, translate literally and thus
obscure word play or humor, shift the moral or political emphases of the source to
sentiments consonant with the receptor culture, and so forth. Investigation of
transfer, representation, and transculturation can thus serve to illuminate
translations with respect to several major axes, enabling both descriptive and
theoretical analysis.
By teasing apart the foregoing types of cultural interface in specific
cultures, the various dimensions and norms of translation in these cultures will
become clearer, and translation as a general phenomenon will be illuminated as well.
In translation studies this is one path to redefining the objects of study and to
understanding in greater delicacy the way a source relates to its translation in many
cultural contexts. It seems very likely that these three strands of cultural
interface are balanced differently in cultures that see translation as related to
biography, to turning over an embroidery, or to carrying across. Case studies
investigating the relationship of these three components of cultural mediation--
transfer, representation, and transculturation--to each other and to translation in
both Western and non-Western cultures will have important implications for
reconceptualizing and enlarging translation theory.
III. Conclusion
What are the ideological implications of the project outlined above? Who are
to be the agents of such research programs and of the expansion of translation
Tymoczko --
theory? Will the broadening of translation theory become an occasion for a new
Orientalism? Will it become a means of adding to the imperial archive?30 Or will
Western thought become more flexible and inclusive on translation, leading to other
sorts of shifts in thinking about language, culture, and the interface between
peoples? These are important questions that require some thought.
As with any intellectual theory, translation theory has the potential to be
used for good or ill, for oppression or liberation. Like translation itself,
translation theory can be a two-edged sword. What is clear at present is that
translation studies does not stand in a neutral space. Contemporary Western
translation theory is increasingly being embraced and used by those who research,
teach, and practice translation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Western
translation theory has been promulgated by teachers of translation (often educated in
North America or Europe), by visiting scholars, and by Bible translators in non-
Western parts of the world. Translation theory has followed the flow and diffusion of
English as a dominant international language serving to spread knowledge of all types
to all corners of the globe. Western conceptualizations of translation are permeating
non-Western countries and becoming lenses for perceiving and understanding local
conditions. This is a form of intellectual hegemony that needs to be reconsidered
and, I would suggest, resisted. The dissemination of Western translation theory will
inevitably continue to have a hegemonic character unless it is interrogated on the
basis of differences that exist between dominant Western assumptions and other local
knowledges and experiences, differences between Western histories of translation and
other local histories.
If the task of enlarging translation theory becomes primarily a project of
Western scholars, the hegemonic potential of translation studies will increase
substantially. By contrast, that peril will be mitigated if the project involves
people from many parts of the world, people who best know and understand and can
advocate for their own local conceptions and traditions of translation. Such voices
30 On the concept of the imperial archive, see Cronin 2000 and sources cited.
Tymoczko --
can promote the self-representation of non-Western perspectives in translation
studies. What is to be hoped is that non-Western translation scholars take the lead
in marshalling data and counterexamples that challenge contemporary translation
theory formulated primarily in the West and that, moreover, the same scholars
articulate the implications of and theorize those data. Such work would resist the
extension of Western theories of translation that are inadequate to describe or
account for much non-Western data. It would also become a means of resistance against
Western constructions of the actual objects of study in translation studies. Modelled
on the internationalism of the translation itself, a refurbished theory of
translation might also promote modes of translation that would move beyond dominant
Western constructions of and norms for translation.
Since World War II and the demise of positivism, Western theorizing about
translation has in fact opened up considerably in defining the objects of study in
the field, and in some quarters scholars have begun to question and propose
alternatives to some of the presuppositions about translation discussed above. The
rise of more culturally open theories about translation in mid century may be related
to the acute perception after World War II in the West regarding the
interconnectedness of the world and the need to adapt to different cultural
expressions of central human activities. Translation studies has begun to investigate
and even espouse alternate modes of translation that are felicitous for integrating
non-Western practices and histories of translation. Such greater openness and
attendant theoretical shifts are apparent in the work of the systems theorists and
their descriptive studies of translation. They are fundamental to the cultural turn
of translation studies in the 1990s. Lawrence Venuti's views of translation, like
feminist theories, have played a part in beginning to question the presuppositions I
have discused. Postcolonial translation studies and other approaches stressing the
relationship between translation and power are important as well (cf. Tymoczko and
Gentzler 2002).
Michel Foucault has observed that "one cannot speak of anything at any time;
it is not easy to say something new; it is not enough for us to open our eyes, to pay
Tymoczko --
attention, or to be aware, for new objects suddently to light up" (1972:44-45). New
discourses have a time and a moment, and that moment is related in turn to the
emergence of changing institutions (Foucault 1972:45-46, 53-54). These are relevant
issues to explore related to the trends that have facilitated exploration of non-
Western materials in translation studies in the last half century. Such movements
share a postpositivist foundation: they stress perspective and self-reflexivity, both
of which are essential in questioning the pretheoretical assumptions behind current
Western approaches to translation.
No longer are rigid or absolutist pontifications--characteristic of
prepositivist Western expressions about translation in the nineteenth century and
earlier--acceptable as theoretical discourses in the field. As I have argued, there
is nonetheless still much to do if translation theory is to be enlarged in order to
incorporate non-Western materials. Attention to the assumptions that I have
delineated here will point translation studies in the right direction, and it is
encouraging to see the work has begun.
Tymoczko --
WORKS CITED
Bassnett, Susan, and Harish Trivedi, eds. 1999. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and
Practice. London: Routledge.
Basso, Keith H. 1990. Western Apache Language and Culture: Essays in Linguistic
Anthropology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clifford, James, and George E. Marcus. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and
Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cronin, Michael. 2000. "History, Translation, Postcolonialism". Changing the Terms:
Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Ed. Sherry Simon and Paul St-Pierre.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 33-52.
---------2002. "The Empire Talks Back: Orality, Heteronomy, and the Cultural Turn in
Interpretation Studies". Translation and Power. Ed. Maria Tymoczko and Edwin
Gentzler. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. 45-62.
Cronin, Michael, and Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin, eds. 2003. The Languages of Ireland.
Dublin: Four Courts.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1974. 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaelogy of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language.
New York: Pantheon.
Tymoczko --
Grähs, Lillebill, Gustav Korlén, and Bertil Malmberg, eds. 1978. Theory and Practice
of Translation. Bern: Peter Lang.
Hatim, Basil. 1997. Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive
Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Katan, David. 1999. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Lefevere, André. 1985. "Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites? The Trouble with
Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm". The
Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Ed. Theo
Hermans. London: Croom Helm. 215-43.
---------1992b. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame.
London: Routledge.
Lord, Albert B. 1964. The Singer of Tales. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1984. Social Systems. Trans. John Bednarz, Jr., with Dirk Baecker.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995.
Montgomery, Scott L. 2000. Science in Translation: Movements of Knowledge through
Cultures and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mukherjee, Sujit. 1994. Translation as Discovery and Other Essays on Indian
Literature in English Translation. Second edition. London: Sangam Books.
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to
Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Tymoczko --
Simon, Sherry, and Paul St-Pierre, eds. 2000. Changing the Terms: Translating in the
Postcolonial Era. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute
for Poetics and Semiotics.
---------1982. "A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies". The Art and Science
of Translation. Ed. André Lefevere and Kenneth David Jackson. Dispositio 7,
special issue, 22-39.
Tymoczko, Maria. 1990. "Translation in Oral Tradition as a Touchstone for Translation
Theory and Practice". Translation, History and Culture. Ed. Susan Bassnett
and André Lefevere. London: Pinter. 46-55.
---------1997. "A Poetry of Masks: The Poet's Persona in Early Celtic Poetry". A
Celtic Florilegium: Studies in Memory of Brendan O Hehir. Ed. Kathryn A.
Klar, Eve E. Sweetser, and Claire Thomas. Lawrence, MA: Celtic Studies
Publications. 187-209.
---------1998. "Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies". The
Corpus-Based Approach. Ed. Sara Laviosa. Special issue of Meta: Journal des
traducteurs 43:4.652-59.
---------1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in
English Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
---------2000. "Translation and Political Engagement: Activism, Social Change and the
Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts", The Translator 6: 1.23-47.
---------2002. "Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Research Methods in Translation
Studies". Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation
Tymoczko --
Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues. Ed. Theo Hermans. Manchester:
St. Jerome Publishing. 9-25.
---------2003a. "Ideology and the Position of the Translator: In What Sense is a
Translator 'In Between'?" A Propos of Ideology: Translation Studies on
Ideology--Ideologies in Translation Studies. Ed. María Calzada Pérez.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. 181-201.
---------2003b. "Language Interface in Early Irish Culture". Strangers to Ourselves:
The Languages of Ireland. Ed. Michael Cronin and Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin.
Dublin: Four Courts. Forthcoming.
Tymoczko, Maria, and Colin Ireland, eds. 2003a. Language and Identity in Twentieth-
Century Irish Culture. Éire-Ireland 38, nos. 1-2, special issue.
---------2003b. Language and Tradition in Ireland: Continuities and Displacements.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Tymoczko, Maria, and Edwin Gentzler, eds. 2002. Translation and Power. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische untersuchungen, Philosophical
Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.
Recommended